---

What has the PLP become? What does it stand for today? The passing of Dame Lois Browne Evans made me think about how unclear it is these days. The party she helped to lead for so many decades - what is it all about in 2007?

There's no question Dr. Ewart Brown has given the party 'pop and sizzle', as he likes to say.

But the fundamental philosophy of the PLP now seems as simple-minded as the UBP's was, a couple of decades ago: "We're better than the other guys, who can't be trusted anyway."

If Dr. Brown remains popular, all the basic stuff - like beliefs, ideology, principles, standards, platforms, policies and programmes - might not matter much to the PLP's chances of victory.

Sooner or later, though, voters will grow weary with the man (as they do with every charmer the world has produced).

Then voters will look around and wonder if the PLP's blurred vision is anything like their own.

Under Dr. Brown, the PLP has taken a huge lurch into territory traditionally held by conservative pro-business parties - by right-wing Republicans and the like.

Developers have been embraced with a zest rarely seen in recent years. Environmental and planning regulations have been shoved aside in their interest. A government health clinic for the poor has been shut down - this almost seems like a caricature of conservative behaviour, rather than the actions of a labour government - and its clients told to go to private doctors.

The Government has rejected calls to protect homosexuals from discrimination, and did nothing to stop protests (led by the Premier's own PLP branch chairman) to halt a gay family cruise from visiting Bermuda.

The Government has moved with increased vigour against foreigners, and has actively participated in the sacking and expulsion of foreigners whose views - while mainstream - they disagreed with. A handful of white candidates have been pushed to the front - an important landmark for the PLP, or any liberal party, for that matter. The only ones named so far, however, have been wealthy builders and developers.

The Premier, meanwhile, is increasingly accused of parading around like a tycoon himself, with a bevy of assistants and security guards, and a convoy of automobiles.

It seems bizarre that the UBP, widely stereotyped as the island's pro-business conservative party, takes a far more liberal view on religious and sexuality issues, advocates a less flamboyant leadership style, and a group of new candidates who include a carpenter (Darius Tucker), a housing activist (Albertha Waite) a legal consultant (Shawn Crockwell) a youth worker (Gina Spence Farmer) and a social worker/drugs counsellor (Austin Warner)...but no developers. Of course this is not a complete picture.

The point though, is that the PLP Government's actions and decisions of the last several months have made it harder than ever to figure out what it stands for - where its beliefs and philosophy and standards lie.

Personality votes

Voters, if they are lucky, have a clear idea of WHO they plan to vote for in the upcoming election.

But they probably have less idea of WHAT it is they are voting for than they have ever had since the two-party system began in Bermuda.

This vague approach - 'pragmatic' to some, but 'murky' to others - carries several major dangers with it.

First of all, it is impossible to hold a political party accountable for its positions if it never actually stands for anything specific in the first place.

Secondly, a political party cannot engage in meaningful debate over the political direction of the country if it has none itself. Almost inevitably, it must resort to boasting about itself and insulting its rivals.

Third, it deprives voters of meaningful political and philosophical choices at election time. They are forced to guess on the beliefs and possible approaches of possible governments, or vote on the basis of fear, prejudice or race.

Finally, it perpetuates a brand of Bermuda politics that divides the races, and perpetuates racial suspicion, and uses that - rather than genuine differences in belief over how our country should be run - as a basis for choosing our Government.

It is tempting to think that the passing of Dame Lois marks the end of an era.

But in fact, the real political change happened almost a decade ago, after the 1998 election brought the PLP to power for the first time.

Or at least, that's what should have happened.

That marked the first time in Bermuda's history that both our main political parties had demonstrated they could win elections, lose elections, run the country well and make their share of big mistakes too.

It was liberating for Bermuda's citizens, and it should have been liberating for Bermuda's political parties as well.

It was a chance for them to stand up for something more than acquiring power, or maintaining power, and to figure out what they really wanted to stand for.

It was a chance for our political parties to break free of old divisions that were mostly race-based, and create a new political world based on political beliefs, principles, policies, platforms and programmes.

Today, the power struggle remains the central plank in the political platform.

The UBP has failed to develop into a mature conservative party; indeed, it seems keen to outflank the PLP on the left.

And the PLP has failed to develop into a mature liberal party. Indeed, since Dr. Brown took over as its leader, it seems determined to knock down every favoured liberal cause and become the party of development.

I'm not sure you can fault Dr. Brown for this: He believes what he believes, presumably, and if he defies easy political categorization, that's just the way he is.

But he is making it harder than ever - and maybe even impossible, for intelligent voters to figure out what his party stands for, and to figure out which party (if tradition, and race, and a whole lot of other baggage is ever lifted off him) they ought to vote for.[[In-content Ad]]

---